order was made on the basis that it would not lead to statelessness, but the decision was then overturned by SIAC, finding that there had been errors in decision‑making and the deprivation had led to statelessness in practice.84 This is also the result of successive legal amendments that have weakened procedural safeguards in deprivation cases. 47. Several domestic courts and the UN Human Rights Committee have confirmed that States ought to bear the burden of proving deprivation of nationality will not result in statelessness, and must account for the difficulty in establishing a negative, i.e. that the person is not a national.85 The individual should cooperate, but national authorities must take proactive measures to verify whether the person effectively and currently has another nationality, before making the deprivation decision. Requiring an applicant to carry the evidentiary burden may, of itself, undermine the quality of the decision‑making and contribute to a finding of arbitrariness under Article 8. 48. Article 1(1) of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as someone “who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”. The element “under the operation” emphasises that determining statelessness is a mixed question of fact and law, requiring an analysis of how the competent authorities apply the law in practice in a specific case.86 According to UNHCR, where a State does not treat an individual as a national, even if they would appear to meet the criteria under a country’s laws, “it is [that State’s] position rather than the letter of the law that is determinative”,87 and the “assessment should be informed by consultations with and written confirmation from the State in question”.88 This is aligned with caselaw from the UK and several European domestic courts (see Annex I). Authorities must thus take reasonable steps to verify nationality by engaging with the authorities of the relevant State with which the person has relevant links. The absence of a response should be given due weight as an indication of statelessness. 49. When assessing whether a deprivation order may render a person stateless, the relevant question is whether the individual currently possesses and has proof of another nationality. Speculative or unverified assumptions as to the existence of another nationality or the possibility of acquiring one are not duly diligent. 50. Where Contracting States fail to take such steps, individuals may be rendered stateless and left in limbo, leading to severe and disproportionate interferences with fundamental rights that the ECHR is intended to prevent and protect. deprivation under section 40(4A) that has rendered an individual formally stateless (see Annex I). 84 C3, C4 and C7 v SSHD (Open Judgment) [2021] SIAC 3 (JA), 18 March 2021, § 117; E3 and N3 v SSHD (Open Judgment) [2018] SIAC SC/138/2017 & SC/146/2017, 15 November 2018, § 110. 85 See case law by the UN Human Rights Committee and domestic courts (listed in Annex I); UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality (2013), A/HRC/25/28; UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (2020), HCR/GS/20/05, §§ 44-45 (“UNHCR Guidelines No. 5”); UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (2014) §§ 89-91 (“UNHCR Handbook”). 86 UNHCR Handbook, op. cit., § 23. 87 ibid, § 37, see also § 99. 88 UNHCR Guidelines No. 5, op. cit., § 81. The distinction between “de jure” and “de facto” statelessness risks undermining the object and purpose of the 1954 Convention. The core function of the Convention is to protect persons who are not recognised as nationals by any State, not just under the letter of the law but also in practice, including those arbitrarily excluded from nationality by their own State. 10